My (JonC) view of the Atonement

[JonC]

No, that (your claim) is not what not scripture says or suggests.

Rom 5:10
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.​

Note the "we" which refers to Paul and his audience, who had been saved (positionally sanctified) but were in the present being saved (progressive sanctification) and would be saved in the future (ultimate sanctification) at Christ's second coming.

To turn the we into all the elect (past present and future) ignores the stated need of some to be (in the future) reconciled. Thus an errant view.

Yes we were reconciled to God by Christ's death. Having been reconciled we will be saved by His life.

Calvinism, and it's philosophy of the Cross (Penal Substitution Theory) is wrong. It is humanistic philosophy. Once you fall for the lie - Penal Substitution Theory- then the only logical path is Calvinism.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Nobody on this forum has an issue with Christ becoming a curse for us. This is Christian belief. That is why Augustine could affirm that Christ became a curse for us while still warning that the idea Christ's death appeased God was a heresy.

You keep claiming this. I would like to see a quotation, please.
But tell me; who caused Christ to become a curse? Who laid that curse on Him?

The Lord did lately (!) our iniquities on Him. This dies NOT mean it was removed from us (you are adding to Scripture). We are clothed in Chrust's (!) righteousness. By your logic Christ is no longer righteous (it was not only "transferred" to us but "transferred" from Him). That would mean you serve an unholy, unjust god. So that is obviously wrong.

Christ, being God, is infinitely righteous; He has righteousness to spare!. We become the righteousness of God in Him.

Isaiah tells Christ was bearing man's sins BUT they esteemed Him stricken. BUT He was saving them.

You are still trying to wriggle off the hook. Isaiah says that it pleased God to bruise or crush Christ. 'They rightly thought that was the case, but wrongly did not appreciate that He was wounded for their transgressions etc.

Yes, the passage presents a dichotomy between the judgment of the World (esteeming Christ as stricken by God) and the truth (He was reconciling man to God through His death).

Christ was stricken by God. You have conceded as much. The dichotomy is not in the striking but in the purpose of it.

You are still a little too indepted to RCC doctrine (once removed). You need to lay all of that philosophy aside and simply believe God's Word.

Yeah, yeah. I can do pathetic insults just as well as you can. You are still a little too indebted to liberal doctrine. You need to lay all that philosophy aside and simply believe God's word. There; touche! Now can we stop all that nonsense, please?

 

[JonC]

You keep claiming this. I would like to see a quotation, please.
But tell me; who caused Christ to become a curse? Who laid that curse on Him?

Christ, being God, is infinitely righteous; He has righteousness to spare!. We become the righteousness of God in Him.

You are still trying to wriggle off the hook. Isaiah says that it pleased God to bruise or crush Christ. 'They rightly thought that was the case, but wrongly did not appreciate that He was wounded for their transgressions etc.

Christ was stricken by God. You have conceded as much. The dichotomy is not in the striking but in the purpose of it.

Yeah, yeah. I can do pathetic insults just as well as you can. You are still a little too indebted to liberal doctrine. You need to lay all that philosophy aside and simply believe God's word. There; touche! Now can we stop all that nonsense, please?

Augustine taught that the cause of Christ's suffering and death was Satan. Under Satan's influence the wicked of this world esteemed Christ as guilty, as stricken by God, and judged Him among the transgressors.

“He [satan] indeed had power to shed His Blood, he did not attain to drink it. And in that he shed the Blood of Him who was no debtor, he was commanded to render up the debtors; he shed the Blood of the Innocent, he was commanded to withdraw from the guilty.” (Augustine, Sermon 80)

This idea that Christ suffered and died at the hands of the World (the evil powers of this world) that unjustly judged Him stricken by God...Ultima in accordance to God's plan, was basic Christian belief (until the Reformation).

You hold a neo-Christian faith (Roman Catholicism rewritten). You replace the RCC view of merit with wrath, the pope with the Reformers, and Scripture with philosophy.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Augustine taught that the cause of Christ's suffering and death was Satan. Under Satan's influence the wicked of this world esteemed Christ as guilty, as stricken by God, and judged Him among the transgressors.

“He [satan] indeed had power to shed His Blood, he did not attain to drink it. And in that he shed the Blood of Him who was no debtor, he was commanded to render up the debtors; he shed the Blood of the Innocent, he was commanded to withdraw from the guilty.” (Augustine, Sermon 80)

That is very different from what you are claiming in your other posts.

Augustine, for example, considered the mere idea that Christ's death appeased God enough to separate one from the faith, saying that the idea was heresy.

That's the claim I would like to see evidence for, please.

 

[DaveXR650]

God was reconciling man to Himself. Man was reconciled to God by Christ's death.

I agree. But Christ's death did a specific thing in order to reconcile man to God. What you are doing is agreeing with everything except you can't bring yourself to say that Jesus acted as a substitute for those he reconciles and took their sins on himself.

And that is what makes God "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus". Romans 3:25 explicitly says it.

By the way, I don't agree with you but thanks for taking the time to patiently respond to all these posts. And thanks for doing this thread on how you view the atonement.

 

[JonC]

I agree. But Christ's death did a specific thing in order to reconcile man to God. What you are doing is agreeing with everything except you can't bring yourself to say that Jesus acted as a substitute for those he reconciles and took their sins on himself.

And that is what makes God "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus". Romans 3:25 explicitly says it.

By the way, I don't agree with you but thanks for taking the time to patiently respond to all these posts. And thanks for doing this thread on how you view the atonement.

The issue is Christ was not a substitute in the sence that He was punished instead of us. The reason I no longer believe Penal Substitution Theory is it is not in the Bible and it is unnecessary (Scripture makes sence just in what is written).

 

[AustinC]

@JonC, congratulations in completely muddying up whatever it is that you claim to believe. I have gone through each post in this thread and for the life of me I cannot figure out what you believe. It's like you've just created a pot of jambalaya and you have no idea how to write down the recipe, but it tastes good to you so you tell everyone else they are wrong.
At this point I honestly don't think you are capable of explaining your view so that others could ever understand it.

 

[SavedByGrace]

In the past FIVE WEEKS only, I have seen about the same number of threads started by JonC, on the meaning of the Atonement. This tells me that he himself does not really understand whether his old view, PSA, or the deception that he now believes, is true! HOW MANY TIMES does it need to keep on banging on about the SAME thing? Jon has been shown from the Bible, time and again, that PSA is taught in the BIble, yet refuses to accept it! He argued that the Greek prepositon ὑπέρ, never means "instead of". Yet I have quoted from Greek authorities, that it DOES, and even shown from Philemon 13, where it is so used, "Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel" (KJV). And he still refuses to accept the FACTS, when he has been proven WRONG!

 

[Aaron]

This illustrates my view of the Atonement (it does not prove it):

God put enmity between the seed of the Serpent and the Seed of the woman, that He shall bruise (or crush) the Serpent on the head while the Serpent will bruise (or crush) the Seed of the woman on the heel. I do believe that this foretells Christ, and points to our redemption (I believe the Serpent here refers to Satan and the powers of “this world”, while the Seed of the woman refers to Christ as the “Last Adam”). But I also admit that this could be talking about snakes biting people and people smashing their heads.

If this is talking about snakes and people, then it does not mean that much. But if it is a prophesy about Christ then it means a great deal. The Serpent (or the works of the Serpent) will crush or bruise the Seed without destroying the Seed, while the Seed will destroy the Serpent.

My view of the Atonement:

God created man as a living person, as flesh, when He created Adam. Adam transgressed God’s command and sin entered into the world, and through sin death entered. Death spread to all mankind because we have all sinned and it is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment.

God gave Israel the Law but man is condemned under the Law (all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory) and the Law serves to show man his sin and to point to a future manifestation of God’s righteousness that is apart from the Law. The Law shows us a need “for another way”.

Good so far. Except that the Law shows us a need for Christ, not merely another way.

God, the Son, became “flesh”. He became man, submitted Himself to the same bondage that held man captive.

This is where you begin to err. He became a man 'under the law,' yes, but not under bondage, having no sin, for the strength of sin is the law.

Where the law pronounces upon us a curse, it pronounces Him blessed.

He was tempted in all points as are we, however without sin. Where we did not meet the righteousness of the Law, He did. He did not transgress the Law.

And the Law brought forth blessing upon Him, not bondage. It couldn't bind Him. 1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane.

Man did not esteem Christ, they did not look to Him as Righteous but instead despised and forsook Him. He bore our griefs (our “infirmity”, our “sickness”),

Accuracy is critical here. He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, meaning those weaknesses that are native to humanity as created, but not sickness and disease. He was acquainted with grief, in other words, sorrow and loss. A man of sorrows, but not sorrows, as in regret for any sin of His own, but compassion for the needs of others and the sorrow for the cause of the needs.

One must be very careful here NOT to think that in His life and ministry, he was bearing the sins and the costs of those sins of others.

BUT man considered Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. Man viewed Christ as a transgressor, as a criminal. And man oppressed Christ. But through this He was bearing their sins, suffering the wages of sin (death) on their behalf.

No. The Spirit expressly says he bore our sins n the Cross. Where you say He was bearing our sins, He was not. He was suffering for righteousness. Not sin.

And more important is the identity of 'we.' It is the elect, those whose sins He did bear in truth, as figured in the breastplate of the High Priest. Twelve stones, for the twelve tribes of Israel, the Elect. It is the Elect who esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted. He was bruised for 'our' iniquities.

And also important is the place of where that estimation is made. It wasn't His Triumphal Entry where we all sang Hosanna! There we esteemed Him blessed, and coming in the name of the LORD. And in His life and ministry, He attracted multitudes.

He wasn't esteemed as smitten of God and afflicted then. He was seen as a great rabbi.

So the place where that estimation is made is the Cross. It's where His closest friends forsook Him. (But not the women.)

And the estimation was true. It was God’s will to crush Him, to put Him to grief (see Genesis 3). The Jewish leaders handed Christ over to the Romans. Christ suffered and died under the evil of this world (the Serpent “crushed” or “bruised” “his heel”) but this was the predetermined plan of God, it was God’s will, He was “pleased” to crush Him.

You're skipping the central theme of Christ's work here, and that is the Cross. You're mistaking the cost of discipleship, or service, for the suffering for sins. The cost of discipleship is OUR cross, but the suffering for sin is HIS Cross. Sin is not in view until He is raised on the Cross. That is where He took on our sins, and bore them in His body, and was accursed of God; where we are healed by His stripes.

God raised Him. The Romans were simply His instruments. And as you are apt to point out in your Faucism, God uses men to accomplish His will.

On the third day Christ arose. God vindicated Christ against the evil that had counted Him as a transgressor, as a criminal, that had esteemed Him stricken of God, and He gave Him a name that is above every name. Christ became a life giving Spirit. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

More accurately, Christ, by the power of an endless life, overcame the righteous judgment of God, that is, the Pains of Death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

O strong Ram, which hast batter'd heaven for me !
Mild Lamb, which with Thy Blood hast mark'd the path !
Bright Torch, which shinest, that I the way may see !
O, with Thy own Blood quench Thy own just wrath ;
John Donne​

The Cross was God reconciling man to Himself, forgiving man, therefore we now plea that men be reconciled to God. Man was reconciled to God through Christ’s death, and men are saved through His life.

This is true. You only need to understand what that means.

 

[DaveXR650]

In the past FIVE WEEKS only, I have seen about the same number of threads started by JonC, on the meaning of the Atonement. This tells me that he himself does not really understand whether his old view, PSA, or the deception that he now believes, is true! HOW MANY TIMES does it need to keep on banging on about the SAME thing?

In all fairness to @JonC , I had actually asked him to start this last thread. And he had expressed reluctance to get into this at the beginning.

 

[JonC]

In the past FIVE WEEKS only, I have seen about the same number of threads started by JonC, on the meaning of the Atonement. This tells me that he himself does not really understand whether his old view, PSA, or the deception that he now believes, is true! HOW MANY TIMES does it need to keep on banging on about the SAME thing? Jon has been shown from the Bible, time and again, that PSA is taught in the BIble, yet refuses to accept it! He argued that the Greek prepositon ὑπέρ, never means "instead of". Yet I have quoted from Greek authorities, that it DOES, and even shown from Philemon 13, where it is so used, "Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel" (KJV). And he still refuses to accept the FACTS, when he has been proven WRONG!

The past threads were an appeal to Scripture, simply asking those who believe the Theory to provide passages stating it. That there have been so many threads but not even one verse stating even one element upon which the Theory is founded illuminates the reason I reject the Theory.

I believe foundational doctrine must be in God's Word, that this is how doctrine is tested.

You do not. You believe doctrine is tested by what you believe is "taught" by God's Word.

That is fine. You made your choice and I made mine.

I knew before getting into this topic that it would quickly devolve into insulting anybody who dare question the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

I knew Penal Substitution Theorists would post verses and declare what they "really mean". I knew @Iconoclast would redefine "propitiation" to mean "substitution". I knew @Martin Marprelate would redefine "for" to mean "instead of". I knew @Revmitchell would "hit and run", play to the crowd.

We have been here before.

I was posting what I believe at the request of a brother.

That said, I am always open to changing my position if I am shown to be mistaken. We are human and do not, as Christians, rely on our own understanding but we rely on the Word of God.

So these past several threads were your opportunity to provide passages, from anywhere in Scripture, stating what you believe. You couldn't.

We simply hold different standards (I lean on God's Word, you on what you understand the Bible to teach).

But each time I am directed to Scripture, to this topic. Each time is an opportunity for me to redefine my understanding, to proclaim God's Word, to go back and study "what is written". Each time solidifies my reliance on Scripture. As you ask questions I turn to the Bible. And I walk away that much stronger in His Word.

The reason I was resistant about discussing this topic is not the topic itself. It is people like you. I struggle with maintaining a Christian demeanor when "attacked" and insulted. I'm working in that. So k owing I would just get insults and no passages stating your belief I was hesitant. The only benefit was showing others the difference between the standards upon which we build our faith.

Were this a discussion between people like @agedman , @DaveXR650 , @Dave G , @37818 , @HeirofSalvation , and @SovereignGrace then I would have no hesitation as they discuss issues like Christians....and. when there are strong disagreements.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I knew @Martin Marprelate would redefine "for" to mean "instead of"

Your problem is that not only do you not know much Greek, but you don't know much English either.
Do you have any conception of the semantic range of the English word 'for?
"I am going out for a walk." Is that 'on behalf of' a walk? 'Instead' of a walk? No, it means 'for the purpose' of a walk.
'For the wrath of God is poured out......' Is that 'on behalf of the wrath? 'Instead of' the wrath'? No, it means 'because' the wrath of God is poured out.'
"I sold my car to this man for $5,000." Is that 'on behalf of' £5,000? No. Is it 'instead of' $5,000? Well sort of. Once I had a car; now I have $5,000 instead. 'In exchange for' would be a good rendering. There is an element of substitution here. Once I had a car and this man had £5,000. Now I have $5,000 and the man has a car.
Let's come a bit nearer home. 'How sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country' (Roman poet Horace). Here the meaning is definitely 'on behalf of' one's country. Could it be 'instead of' one's country? No. It is very unlikely that one's man's death could save a country, and in any case, a country cannot really die.
'For ['because'] when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for [Gk. huper] the ungodly.' Is this 'on behalf of' the ungodly'? Yes, absolutely. Is it 'instead of'? Yes, that as well. If Christ died for the ungodly, and the ungodly die anyway (in the sense of John 11:25-26), then Christ did not die on their behalf. QED.

Now try this one, to see if you understand yet. '.....While we were still sinners, Christ died for [Gk. huper] us.' Explain to us all how Christ died on our behalf if He did not die instead of us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes we were reconciled to God by Christ's death.

How does Christ dying a horrible death reconcile us to God?

 

[JonC]

Your problem is that not only do you not know much Greek, but you don't know much English either.
Do you have any conception of the semantic range of the English word 'for?
"I am going out for a walk." Is that 'on behalf of' a walk? 'Instead' of a walk? No, it means 'for the purpose' of a walk.
'For the wrath of God is poured out......' Is that 'on behalf of the wrath? 'Instead of' the wrath'? No, it means 'because' the wrath of God is poured out.'
"I sold my car to this man for $5,000." Is that 'on behalf of' £5,000? No. Is it 'instead of' $5,000? Well sort of. Once I had a car; now I have $5,000 instead. 'In exchange for' would be a good rendering. There is an element of substitution here. Once I had a car and this man had £5,000. Now I have $5,000 and the man has a car.
Let's come a bit nearer home. 'How sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country' (Roman poet Horace). Here the meaning is definitely 'on behalf of' one's country. Could it be 'instead of' one's country? No. It is very unlikely that one's man's death could save a country, and in any case, a country cannot really die.
'For ['because'] when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for [Gk. huper] the ungodly.' Is this 'on behalf of' the ungodly'? Yes, absolutely. Is it 'instead of'? Yes, that as well. If Christ died for the ungodly, and the ungodly die anyway (in the sense of John 11:25-26), then Christ did not die on their behalf. QED.

Now try this one, to see if you understand yet. '.....While we were still sinners, Christ died for [Gk. huper] us.' Explain to us all how Christ died on our behalf if He did not die instead of us.

I am not sure how much, or at what level, you studied Greek. But I do know, being from England, you should know English words.

You know peoole testify on behalf of others all of the time.

How can I testify for you, on your behalf, without testifying "instead of you"? If you can't figure that out, then it is time for you to purchase a dictionary.

What is your education (insofar as Greek language studies)?

 

[JonC]

How does Christ dying a horrible death reconcile us to God?

How does Christ dying a horrible death, under the evil powers of this world, NOT reconcile man to God????

 

[agedman]

@Martin Marprelate
You may have addressed this before, but does not the KJV choose to use the word "Bruised" rather then "Crushed" in Isaiah.

Does not the actual wording consider the crushing to be contrite, humbled, oppressed, ...

I think sometimes folks get the idea of crushing is to grind into powder, when it is more like crushing a can after its contents are consumed. The can is still a can.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

Here is an English lesson for you. Note what "in behalf of" does NOT mean -

In behalf of

1: as a representative of someoneThe teacher accepted the award on behalf of the whole class.
2: in behalf of someone or in someone's behalf : for the benefit of someone : in support of someone
3: because of someoneDon't get up on my behalf.

Definition of ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE

1: For someone else, as someone's agent or representative.

2: For someone's benefit or interest

Definition of in behalf of | Dictionary.com

done for another person’s benefit or support, or because you are representing the interests of that person:
I’d like to say on behalf of the whole group that we wish you well in your new job.

on behalf of someone

speaking for; representing

On behalf of definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary


The word simply does NOT mean "instead of". You are redefining words to suit your theory.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Definition of in behalf of | Dictionary.com

done for another person’s benefit or support, or because you are representing the interests of that person:
I’d like to say on behalf of the whole group that we wish you well in your new job.

The whole group wishes you well; I say it on their behalf. I say it, they don't. I say it instead of them.

The word simply does NOT mean "instead of". You are redefining words to suit your theory.

As I showed in my post above, the word does not always mean "instead of" but very often it does. You are redefining words to suit your theory. Here you are again: '.....While we were still sinners, Christ died for [Gk. huper] us.' Explain to us all how Christ died on our behalf if He did not die instead of us.

 

[JonC]

The whole group wishes you well; I say it on their behalf. I say it, they don't. I say it instead of them.

As I showed in my post above, the word does not always mean "instead of" but very often it does. You are redefining words to suit your theory. Here you are again: '.....While we were still sinners, Christ died for [Gk. huper] us.' Explain to us all how Christ died on our behalf if He did not die instead of us.

No. That is "as a representative". Scripture uses it the same way (Christ as the "Last Adam").

Scripture says "Christ for our sins". You read "Christ died instead of our sins". "Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world". You read "Christ is the Propitiation instead of the sins of the elect".


It is amazing at the lengths you go for your tradition. You refuse to accept Scripture and now you refuse to accept dictionaries. Is your RCC (reformed) tradition really that important to you that you are completely closed to God's Word on this topic?

 

[Iconoclast]

The whole group wishes you well; I say it on their behalf. I say it, they don't. I say it instead of them.

As I showed in my post above, the word does not always mean "instead of" but very often it does. You are redefining words to suit your theory. Here you are again: '.....While we were still sinners, Christ died for [Gk. huper] us.' Explain to us all how Christ died on our behalf if He did not die instead of us.

YES YOU ARE CORRECT YET AGAIN. Word games over and over.